Is The S-37 Fighter Up There With The F-22 ?!?!

Originally posted by American Mad Man


The makers of the EF admit t s not as good, chew on that.

As far as radar, the Raptors is better - read here.

As far as fire power, they use te same weapons, so that is not true.

And if any aircraft has better "other stuff" it is definatly the Raptor.

yeah lets see
EF= light fighter
F/A-22 = air superiority plane

Yes the makers of EF "admit" it when they were well payed by the US government to shut up

Of course a F-22 dedicated web site will say Raptor is the best one

Yes they might use the same weapons but EF carries more of them

How would you know that? Of course the Americans will never say that something created in another country is better than a US product

[edit on 24/11/2004 by khruschev]

Originally posted by khruschev

Apache isn't superior even to Mi-24

Stop talking BS, please, Mi-24 didn't even had night vision.

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by khruschev

Apache isn't superior even to Mi-24

Stop talking BS, please, Mi-24 didn't even had night vision.

Modernised ones have

Originally posted by longbow


Stop talking BS, please, Mi-24 didn't even had night vision.

yeah and your navy helicopters sink

all this is crap. whose more agile? answer: it doesnt matter, bvr weapons make the dogfight obsolete.
stores on pylons. again since bvr weapons, agility doesnt matter.
stealth? awacs and a good radar keep most aircraft adequatly informed on "stealthy" aircraft positions
one advantage raptor has is 2d thrust vectoring. no use cause no dogfights, but good for short take off and reduced control surfaces.
however mechanical thrust vectoring limits "stealthiness". when fluidic thrust vectoring gets going then this will cease to be a problem. on current state of play i would rate eurofighter=raptor>su-37. allthough the new russian fighter coproduced with india could eclipse all these(su-47 berkut) but we wont see this for quite some time.

Originally posted by khruschev
Yes the makers of EF "admit" it when they were well payed by the US government to shut up

Of course a F-22 dedicated web site will say Raptor is the best one

Yes they might use the same weapons but EF carries more of them

How would you know that? Of course the Americans will never say that something created in another country is better than a US product

No F-22 is better in everything than EF - range, stealth, avionics, radar, manuvrability..., even the EF engeneers are saying the same thing.
Eurofighter cannot carry more weapons than F-22, F-22 is able to carry 2350 kg under each hardpoint (it has 4 of them) plus more than 1000kg in internal bomb bay - EF has maximum payload of 6500 kg on ALL stores.
Let's face it EF ist just an Mig-29 with better radar and longer range. It is an aircraft with 3rd gen airframe design (absolute ZERO inovation) and 4th gen avionics.
About the "multi role" - let me laugh - the current EF planes have NO ground attack capability at all! It will only be added in the future! So It is the same as by F-22 (or maybe even worse).


[edit on 26-10-2004 by longbow]

Originally posted by longbow

No F-22 is better in everything than EF - range, stealth, avionics, radar, manuvrability..., even the EF engeneers are saying the same thing.
F-22 is able to carry 2350 kg under each hardpoint (it has 4 of them) plus more than 1000kg in internal bomb bay.
Let's face it EF ist just an Mig-29 with better radar and longer range

.

Pure American ignorance, and the problem why I don't like some American people is because you can never admit that not everything you have is the best I am not saying I hate Americans, just some people coming from there, and not really hate them, but dislike...


If F-22 used external weapons it would lose its stealth capabilities so it only uses internal weapons.

MiG-29 even though I like the plane is a very old plane, unless you speak of a SMT modification... EF is a new design with a good airframe and excellent electronics. And as I said the EF engineers say what they have been payed to say

[edit on 24/11/2004 by khruschev]

so the f22 can use its autopilot to attack the enemy huh?

Originally posted by mpcsmith7

stealth? awacs and a good radar keep most aircraft adequatly informed on "stealthy" aircraft positions

The only thing that will AWACS see is incoming AMRAAM . Just because they can detect normal planes 300 km away doesn't mean they can do it with RAPTOR - maybe 50-60 km (the future advanced AWACS models) and AMRAAM c has a range of 90 km. Not to mention that WACS is flying always behind the "front line" so it will prpbably send no warning at all.

Originally posted by longbow
The only thing that will AWACS see is incoming AMRAAM

. Just because they can detect normal planes 300 km away doesn't mean they can do it with RAPTOR - maybe 50-60 km (the future advanced AWACS models) and AMRAAM c has a range of 90 km. Not to mention that WACS is flying always behind the "front line" so it will prpbably send no warning at all.

yeah like thier going to give thier radar plane a worse radar than thier fighter? please exsplain the logic here?

dont you think that awacs radars and radar operators will be upgraded and better informed to combat this aircraft. the airframe has been around for some time, and avionics upgrades allways move faster than airframe upgrades. i would expect that since the raptor has been so long in the pipeline that the effectiveness of its stealth has greatly dimished in the face of upgraded awacs operations.

Originally posted by khruschev


Pure American ignorance, and the problem why I don't like some American people is because you can never admit that not everything you have is the best

I am not saying I hate Americans, just some people coming from there, and not really hate them, but dislike...


If F-22 used external weapons it would lose its stealth capabilities so it only uses internal weapons.

MiG-29 even though I like the plane is a very old plane, unless you speak of a SMT modification... EF is a new design with a good airframe and excellent electronics. And as I said the EF engineers say what they have been payed to say

1. I'm not American.
2. Also with external weapons the F-22 will still be much more stealthy than EVERYTHING that could be flying against it, so it still has an advantage.
3. Yes, I'm saying EF airframe design is Mig-29/Mirage-2000 class. It uses more composites, has better engines and avionics, but still it's 3rd gen airframe.


[edit on 26-10-2004 by longbow]

Originally posted by devilwasp
no its called taiwan but we do give you your B class armour.

Sorry - US millitary tech is in house. Look at the Raptor website - it's all made in the US. As far as B class armour - are you speaking of tanks or body armour?

best fighter plane eh , so what about the F23 ? i suppose the fact it was better doesnt matter huh?

Hey buddy - use the search function - I was the Author of the Y/F-23 vs F/A-22 thread

And yeah, it doesn't really matter because the 23 will not be built. But in case you didnt notice, that was an American plane too, so I guess the US has the top TWO planes in the world

you know i was meaning PLANE! not "fighter"

OK, so the B-2 has better stealth. Hmmm - whos that made by? Oh - the US! Big suprise there

In fact, it's been 20 years and no other country has made a single stealth airraft. The US is working on it's 4th!

In regards to the Raptors stealth, it was built to be as stealthy as it could be while also supercruising and having superior agility.

for what job?

Any job it will be asked of.

best EW oh wow it sends EM waves towards the plane and stops THAT plane talking to any other. now let me see since when did a fighter need to do EW even if it is stupid.
now let me ask you this anti cruise missile platform i dont get how that will work i mean come on how they gona know a cruise is comeing secdonly this EW stuff will be defeated by shielding not that hard to shield something and thirdly do you know how hard it is to hit a missile in mid air?

Does any other fighter have the EW ability of the Raptor? NO! I notice you didn't argue that it will be great in strike missions.

As far as cruise missle intercept, they are working on a dedicated anti missle missle. The Raptor will utilize it's stealth in times of hostility to penetrate enemy lines and intercept cruise missles that are fired.

says the report that inforemed the govermant aka polititions about it.

Keep believing that. I guess you are one of these politicians getting these top secret reports? Or are they mainstream. If so please, by all means give me a link.

really ever heard of the KA50?
yes "would" that fatal word huh.

Yeah - I know of the KA50. I'll stick with the tried and true Apache. And as far as the Comanche goes, we could build them anytime we wanted - we just don't need it at the moment for the price it costs. You should know something about cost cutting in the military living in the UK

really? are you privy to MOD thoughts or are you just telepathic.

No - I'm just logical. You criticize the US for not having cannons in vietnam, and now you try to dfend your own nations shortcomings in the same area. WHICH IS IT? IT CAN"T BE BOTH WAYS!

The fact is if you had to go to war on short notice, your pilots wouldn't have amo for their guns. I would say they would need it then.

yes ofcourse even when they display friendly makers all over the hill. ncie cover up job done though, get our gov to deny all knowledge till 2025.
and the fact even AMERICAN troops were angry at thier pilots?

Hey - I'm not saying it's right, just that it happens in war OK. To think otherwise is ignorant.

really so the sidewinder , even though still used by USAF, is inferior huh. also the harroer can carry weapons like that.

If you could read, you would notice one of the missles I mentioned was in fact the sidewinder. And the harrier can't use the AMRAAM which will be the mainstay US A2A missle.

why should we spend money on missiles you will give us because your afraid of comunism.

Well, since all of you brits seem to think your electronics and radar technology is so much better, maybe you should be designing them ehhh? Besides, you pay for the missles just like everyone else.

really? so the fact the F/A-22 uses griphon tech in it because they needed to look nice?

I'll say it again, THE RAPTOR WOULD RIP IT A NEW A-HOLE.

Do you really want to say otherwise?

point is caller? where you at the game?

The point is that the US makes the best fighters in the world.

so what it is american everything you own is technically british since you descend from us anyway but thats another discussion.

Maybe you missed that little revolutionary war thing where we kicked you off our land. Get a grip buddy - nothing in the US is British - ESPECIALLY when you are speaking in technical terms.

the black widow is a USA plane yet even with your "great" knowledge you pick a dog fighter over an airdominance fighter? explsain the sense?

You should really read the thread I made on the subject - it is very revealing. First of all, BOTH fighters were air dominance fighters. Second, the reasons for picking the Raptor were it had greater agility and lower costs. Lock-Mart was also considered the more reliable company to give the contract to.

yeah because you spen trillions on BORROWED money makes your fighters better but one little fact for ya, at least we build them to save our pilots. but the fact of the matter is even with less moeny we still made the first STOVL plane ?

excuses excuses. The FACT is that US planes are BETTER then everyone elses, regardless of how you spin it.

BTW, the Harrier was considered an unsafe aircraft in the US. Yes you made the first STOVL plane. Congrats.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by American Mad Man]

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by longbow
The only thing that will AWACS see is incoming AMRAAM

. Just because the AWACS can detect normal planes 300 km away doesn't mean they can do it with RAPTOR - maybe 50-60 km (the future advanced AWACS models) and AMRAAM C has a range of 90 km. Not to mention that AWACS is flying always behind the "front line" so it will probably send no warning at all.

yeah like thier going to give thier radar plane a worse radar than thier fighter? please exsplain the logic here?

No AWACS has better radar, but it has also HUGE RCS, while Raptor is stealth. So raptor will "see" it sooner.

its all trash talk when alls said and done. i think some people are going to have to agree to disagree. it doesnt mattter which is best really because none of them are in service. i guess when Red Flag next comes round then we will see whats what. i hope to be there in a couple of years and cant wait to see how the new a/c perform. if the brits cant win the airdominance battle, which i think is a foregone conclusion, then at least the GR4 will mop up in the low level strike missions, as per usual. as for helicopters im going to go for the new batch of apaches coming into service with the uk and us(?) it is the ugliset looking thing ever created by mankind, but it does scare the sh*t out of everyone and everything.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I never said they didn't. But anti stealth (just like stealth does not equate to invisability) does not simply cancel out the stealth. So assuming that both aircraft have roughly equal anti stealth systems the Raptor would still have first look because it has such superior stealth.

- assumptions assumptions!

I'd say that pursuit of defense from global thermo-nuclear war is worth it.

- Well "worth it" implies something of actual value.....when you've spent 30+yrs (including research and spending on prev systems) and still are having to tell the test kit where and when (exactly) to look....hell, going as far as to fit the 'target' with 'markers'! ; I'd say 'worth it' must have a strange meaning in certain parts especially considering what you might have done with the resources.

It has not ended yet, and we are just starting to see the fruts of our labor.

- Yeah yeah yeah results are always just around the corner with that project.....and anyway, what results?

As it has been said, a workable 100kw solid state laser should be available by the time the JSF comes into service. That will mean an anti missle system for them. It could negate the effectiveness of missles. That will be the biggest revolution in A2A combat since the missle.

- 2yrs then? We shall see.

Wait a second - in what world do planes go to war without weapons loaded? The Typhoon holds it's missles on pylons. The Raptor stores them in bays. Thus when in a combat role the Raptor has a big advantage.

- In pure A2A role the Typhoon carries 4 AMRAAM equiv in conformal racks under the fuselage. It carries 2 ASRAAM equiv on the wingtips and may (depending upon the mission/environment) fit either kind of missile on underwing pylons.

Clearly with pylons is less stealthy than without. The point is in a high threat arena the pylons wouldn't be carried.

Maybe you forget that military aircraft eletronics are not exactly domestic, eh?

- It was just an example of enormous range of european electronic innovation unmatched by anyone anywhere in the world (Sony maybe comes a distant 2nd).

If that is what we are doing commercially why do you keep insisting we don't know 'base from apex' in the military sphere?

.What do you mean "who flew into a fight with everything hanging"?

- I meant why are you assuming Typhoon would be hanging everything possible under it's wings?

Every fighter that has ever had misles has had them hanging!

- But Typhoon doesn't need to be armed in this manner to be carrying a heavy load.

If you get too close to the enemy aircraft to use misles then you use guns. If you want to use any kind of short ranged misle you are going to get into an agility fight. Come on Sminkey - we are talking real world here, not some airshow.

- How was I talking 'airshow'?

Even the gun turns out to be using the same ammo as the Tornado so we got shed loads of that.

I don't know about weight, but my guess would be no because the Raptor can carry so many more weapons when maxed out. Of course since the Raptor wasn't designed around strike missions (though it certainly can fullfill that role quite nicely) the Typhoon could be able to handle more wieght to account for bombs.

- I think more than a few commentators have remarked upon the size and power of the F22 being rather unimpressive when it comes to weight of weapons carriage.

AMM, if you are going to argue the toss about aircraft, and pull people up on their so called lack of knowledge, you should maybe brush up on your own. You have made a great many claims that leave me gasping in disbelief and the posts are far too long for me to start dissecting them line by line but there are a couple of glaring errors that I feel compelled to mention;

Wait a second - in what world do planes go to war without weapons loaded? The Typhoon holds it's missles on pylons. The Raptor stores them in bays. Thus when in a combat role the Raptor has a big advantage

also you later stated that every fighter with AAM's has always hung them on pylons.

Schoolboy error! the Typhoon carries its AMRAAM's and will carry its Meteors conformally under the body, this is something that a huge number of fighters have done in the past and it imposes no limits during combat as you seem to believe.

You say that the Harrier can not carry the AMRAAM. Wrong again, it is the standard armament of the Royal Navy's Shar 2 for BVR air defence ops. Also you asked someone if they thought the Harrier could stand a chance against the US teen series fighters. I remind you that the same was said about the far less capable Shar 1 when it was going to go up against mach 2 Mirages twenty years ago, so you never know, do you? A pair of 801 Sqn Shars 'splashed' a pair of USN F-14's on excercise several years ago, this should not have happened and yet it did.

Also of course the Typhoon is more agile than the Raptor, this isn't even in doubt, thae Typhoons canard layout was created specifically for extreme agility whilst the Raptor is considerably heavier which counts against it in this respect. I concede that the Typhoons problem might lie in getting close enough for agility to count but there are ways and means being discovered all the time.

It also smacks of desperation when the notion of the F-35 being armed with a laser is propelled into the argument. Seeing as how the AL-1 Laser armed aircraft is in fact a Boeing 747 and is STILL not reliable enough for service just how do you expect a working weapon to fit in the F-35 within a decade or so? Of course it wont.

You also state that the Harrier is considered dangerous in the US, which I percieved as a snidey dig at the fact that you had to buy a British aircraft in order to get this capability at all, nevertheless it is the case that the loss rate in the US Harrier force is far greater than it is in Britain, or any other operator of the type. Why should this be? Surely not the quality of the pilots or their training? I merely ask.

Also Longbow (and I think you are British not American?) You seem to have a major downer on the Typhoon, the 'zero innovation' claim for instance. What do you mean by this as the Typhoon was the first of the modern agile canard fighter projects and is also the best fighter to emerge from this 'theme' of fighter design, though the passage of time tends to cloud over this, it also introduces a great many innovations if you only care to look at ther programme objectively.


[edit on 26-10-2004 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos

Also of course the Typhoon is more agile than the Raptor, this isn't even in doubt, thae Typhoons canard layout was created specifically for extreme agility whilst the Raptor is considerably heavier which counts against it in this respect. I concede that the Typhoons problem might lie in getting close enough for agility to count but there are ways and means being discovered all the time.

What are you talking about? F-22 has maximum SUSTAINED AoA of 60 degrees whil EF has maximum 30. THIRTY!!! That means for example that F-22 can turn twice faster than EF! I have seen a movie posted on this site with F-22 flying in forward direction with it's nose 60 degrees up. Can EF do it?Weight doesn't mean much, with such powerfull engines and good airframe, look at the Sukhoi-27 - it is much much heavier than F-16 and what's better close combat? Maybe EF with thrust vectoring would be better but NOW IT HAS NO TWC.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by longbow]

for the last time!!!! Beyond visual range weapons make agility a moot point!!!!!!! unless there is an allmighty f*ck up no modern aircraft should ever get caught in a visual engagement.